Terry: I would have to agree with the fellow on this point... at least with what he is essentially saying. But then I do not for a moment by into the idea that you can create the exact same acoustical results with any assortment of soundboard assembly procedures. Some will have it you can simply take crate board, process it into the required dimensions, rib it any way you want... and end up with a piano that sounds <<just like>> any particular instrument one wants to mention. My own ears tell me this is obviously not the case. Indeed, argumentation on the subject by advocates of this line of thinking often go towards pointing at acoustical differences (given some attribute of a weakness) when touting the virtues of their own design philosophies. One obviously can not have it both ways I am sure we would all agree. Either there are hearable / performance / functional differences... or there are not. In the case of laminated soundboards... I have to date to hear one I thought was more then minimally acceptable from a performance instrument perspective. That by no means says I do not believe a decent soundboard can be achieved using laminants... it just says I've yet to run into one. Cheers RicB > "Take two crystal glasses. You flick the first glass with your finger and it 'binggggs' forever, > that's what I would refer to as a solid, wooden soundboard. Then you take the other glass, > and it looks pretty,but when you flick it it goes 'plunk' and there is no ring ... that is like > a laminated soundboard." > Arrrrrggggggggggg. > Terry Farrell
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC